Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
114 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
IDEA year of enactment |
1975 |
|
|
Eligibility under IDEA |
meet oneor more of the criteria of the 13 categories |
|
|
IDEA Constitutional Foundation |
XIV Amendment “equalprotection under the law” |
|
|
11th amendment and IDEA |
immunityof states from being sued by private citizens, it has been lifted for IDEA |
|
|
Amendments of 1986 HCPA |
Handicapped ChildrenProtection Act – could recover legal fees |
|
|
Early Childhood Amendments |
added ages 3-5, most statesadded birth to 2 |
|
|
IDEA 1990-key changes |
name changed to IDEA, addedautism & traumatic brain injury, added transition services |
|
|
IDEA 1997-key changes |
state reform efforts; students with disabilities must have access to general ed curriculum and participate in state wide/district assessments having students be part ofstate reform efforts, stu with IEP must participate in regular curriculum andstatement assessments, added discipline |
|
|
IDEA 2004 Influentialreports-Finn et al; Commission on special education |
Both found that we need tofocus on results, make things less complicated. We don’t need 13 categories,lets group them into 2 or 3 |
|
|
Alignment with NCLB |
highly qualified teachers,scientific based instruction based on peer reviewed research, AYP (Assessment) |
|
|
IDEA 2004 Overall Aims |
parents and quality ofservices |
|
|
Early Intervening Services |
up to 15% of funds can goto this |
|
|
Response to Intervention |
verify students with learningdisabilities |
|
|
Due Process hearings |
focus on substantive issues |
|
|
Timelines for filling a due process hearing/civil action |
dueprocess hearing – 2 years; civil action – 90 days |
|
|
Section 504 Intent |
to eliminate discriminationbased on disabilities |
|
|
Section 504 covered institutions |
covers only publicinstitutions that receive funding |
|
|
Section 504 subparts-coverage |
subpart D, EducationalAspects |
|
|
Section 504 eligibility |
any person with physical ormental disability that limits life experience; record of impairment; regardedas having impairment |
|
|
Section 504 Subpart D components |
PRESCHOOL, ELEMENTARYo, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Prohibits discrimination in preschool, elementary, and secondary programs receiving federal financial assistance |
|
|
Type: Funding: Purpose: FAPE: Eligibility Due Process: Exhaustion: Enforcement: Where do you go? Violate |
Look at chart |
|
|
ADA Intent |
extend right of 504 toprivate sector |
|
|
ADA Title II |
Public Services (publicinstitutions): people with disabilities cannot be excluded from participationor denied benefits |
|
|
Mitigating Factors |
Sutton Trilogy reversed, mitigating factors should beconsidered |
|
|
Major Life Activities |
Bodily Functions |
|
|
Arline |
teacher who previously hadTB, fired, but reinstated with back pay, no reason to fire. Tests came backnegative (10 of them). Teacher was reinstated – teacher was otherwise qualified |
|
|
Sutton Trilogy |
Mitigating Factors --promptedCongress to reopen ADA (glasses,medication, self-corrected, all mitigating factors); implications – whenimpairments are treated, no longer qualify for ADA. Avoid hypotheticalsituations – to disabled hire, but not too disabled to fight againstdiscrimination – too disabled hire, but not too disabled to fight againstdiscrimination |
|
|
Olmstead |
least restrictive environment, most influentialin ADA --females with mental retardation could becared for in community-based program, but remained institutionalized –unnecessary institutional segregation – integration |
|
|
Gorman |
monetary damages not available under ADA--paraplegic man, suffered injuries while in police custody –potentially, under 504, you cannot gain (what are the potential legal forparents to recoup punitive damages? IDEA, Section 504) monetary damages –punishment in addition to money lost by the individual; punitive damages cannotbe awarded in private suits |
|
|
Tennessee v. Lane |
immunity of state, but it can be lifted ifCongress so chooses (w/valid reasons) – for this case, it was ok to lift it -- state employees to gain money damages by reason’s of statesfailure to comply with Title I – ruled that they could not ; congress can abrogate the 11th amendment whenit both unequivocally intends to do so |
|
|
ESSA Intent & key provisions |
focus on improvingachievement gap, standard based achievement |
|
|
ESSA v NCLB |
power shifted from federalgovernment to states |
|
|
Rowley v. Board of Education (1982) Access |
access to classrooms |
|
|
Maximizing potential |
not mandated—intent ofCongress was to ensure access, not guarantee any particular level ofsubstantive education levels ---rowley |
|
|
Educational Methodologies |
Up to professionals |
|
|
Two step standard |
1.) Procedural – did everyone follow the rules fordeveloping & implementing IEP; 2.) Substantive: Does the IEP content confermeaningful education benefit? |
|
|
HOW HAS FAPE CHANGED OVER YEARS? |
COURTS & AMENDMENTS |
|
|
IDEA 1997 and FAPE |
Students with disabilities were testedwith general education students (statewide assessment) |
|
|
IDEA 2004 and FAPE (4 things) |
·Public expense, public supervision &direction and without charge ·Meet standards of state educationalagencies ·Include appropriate preschool, elementary& secondary school education ·Provided in conformity with the IEP |
|
|
IEPs and FAPE-Identify 4 components |
·Present Level Performance ·Measurable Annual Goals ·Special Education Services ·Monitor Progress |
|
|
Timothy W. v. Rochester (1989) |
Education: oncequalified, always qualify; non-discriminatory assessment – native language,evaluation team, parental consent, multiple sources, technically adequateassessment; MMY
Zero reject– once qualified, services must be offered – schoolscan never refuse services |
|
|
ASSESSMENT: IDEA Eligibility |
student must have one or more of13 disabilities to receive services |
|
|
ASSESSMENT Who sets criteria for eligibility? |
States |
|
|
Safeguards in assessments |
Consent: Informed Consent NativeLanguage: Language student predominately uses at homeor school TrainedPersonnel: Administer test in standardized manner TechnicallyAdequate Instruments-Mental measurement Yearbook |
|
|
Technically Adequate Instruments |
Norms – compared results with reference group Validity Reliability– students receive similar results one week asanother |
|
|
ASSESSMENT Timelines |
60 days |
|
|
Safeguards in General (7 things) |
Independent Evaluation – must be considered if it exists, parents have the right tohave one done Access torecords – access to educational records PriorNotice – prior notice of evaluation and results ofthat evaluation Consent – informed consent from the parents Due ProcessRights IAES - Interim AlternativeEducational Setting can only be used temporarily if students could cause harmto others Unilateral Placements – students can be placed in a different school/district ifFAPE can not be offered, as designated in the IEP without expense to theparents |
|
|
Special Education Process Pre referral Teams |
support teacher, make areferral |
|
|
Special Education Process Multidisciplinary Team |
design IAP; secure informedconsent; collect relevant information – report results; make a verificationdecision |
|
|
Special Education Process IEP Team- |
placement & monitoring,has 30 days to establish IEP |
|
|
Larry P. case |
still enforced in CA today;African American students thought to have an intellectual disability cannot betested using an intelligence (IQ) test |
|
|
Diana case |
Testedstudent in English when students didn’t speak English |
|
|
Compton case |
Child Find Activities – ifyou have flags, do something about it |
|
|
IEPs Intent |
to ensure students receiveFAPE |
|
|
IEPs Type of document |
a contract in the sense that wehave to implement it exactly, its not a contract in that if the student doesnot reach the goals, the district is not liable |
|
|
IEPs Rowley two step standard |
procedural (did everyonefollow the rules) & substantive (does the content confer some meaningfuleducational benefits?) |
|
|
IEPs IEP benchmarks and short term objectives |
only for 1% of alternativeassessments of those who have significant intellectual disabilities |
|
|
IEP participants |
gen ed teacher (at least1), special ed teacher (at least one), parents, LEA representative, child (whenappropriate), person familiar with assessment, knowledge or special abilitieswho is familiar with child |
|
|
LEA REP |
qualified toprovide/supervise special ed; knowledge about general ed curriculum &availabilities of LEA resources |
|
|
IEP Alternative means for participation – |
parents can join themeeting via video conference – parents must give permission |
|
|
IEP content – |
present levels ofachievement & performance; description of benchmarks or short termobjectives for those who take alternative assessments; statement of measurablegoals; monitoring |
|
|
IEP Content Key aim |
the students participation& progress in the gen ed curriculum |
|
|
IEP Content Peer-reviewed research |
Ridley, its not up toeducators to decide methodology |
|
|
Special Factors (5) |
childs behavior impedeschild’s or others learning; visual impairment; limited English proficiency,assistive technology devices and services; hearing impairment (5!) |
|
|
IEP Review |
have to be reviewed annually |
|
|
IEP changes |
changes may be amended, ifparents give consent, without meeting. If there are a lot of changes, have tohave another meeting |
|
|
IEP Accessibility |
accessible to each regulared teacher, special ed teacher |
|
|
IEP in effect |
anytime an IEP has been developedproperly, and agreed upon by the parents. must be implemented as written in itsentirety |
|
|
Transfer students In State Out of State |
In state – can use previous evalresults, implement existing IEP Out ofstate – conduct eval |
|
|
Independent Evaluations |
parents have the right to have onedone, must be considered by IEP team |
|
|
Parental consent for placement |
parents MUST agree to placement, if they do not thestudent will not receive placement |
|
|
Henrico |
Thedefendants violated IDEA procedures when they resolved to educate JonathanSpielberg at Randolph, and then developed an IEP to carry out their decision. |
|
|
Doug C |
parental participation(overrides deadline); IEP is still valid; timelines secondary to parentalparticipation; schedule meetings is secondary to parental participation; afollow up meeting with not make up for the meeting the IEP is developed The only time an IEP can be developed without parents is ifparents refuse to attend themeeting. |
|
|
Ridley |
•Courtdid not need to decide if lack of peer-reviewed research would be a denial ofFAPE because Project Read was research based.•IEPretains flexibility to devise an appropriate program in light of availableresearch•Courtsmust accord deference to choices made by school district•TheIDEA does not require the school district to choose the program supported bythe optimal level of research as long as program is “calculatedto enable the child to receive meaningful educational benefit.” |
|
|
Extended School Year Services (2 major things) |
Regression Recoupment – all can qualify, butmostly for those with severe intellectual disability; definingsignificant regression/recoupment; |
|
|
Armstrong v. Kline |
established need forExtended School Year Services |
|
|
LRE |
Least Restrictive Environment |
|
|
LRE Principle |
balance between educationalbenefits, close to their peers |
|
|
Feasibility Portability Test |
(from Ronkercase) if services can be offered ingeneral ed environment, then it cannot occur in a segregated placement (Can theeducational services that make…?) |
|
|
Ronker |
established FeasibilityPortability Test |
|
|
Hartmann- |
inclusion not necessary if- threeprong test established in previous case that was used in determining whether achild should be placed in general ed classroom Three prong criteria: 1.) Studentwith disability would not receive benefit from such placement 2.) any marginalbenefits would be significantly outweighed by benefits that could feasibly beobtained in a separate setting; 3.) the student’s presence is a disruptiveforce Benefit: Receipt of social benefitsis a subordinate goal to receiving educational benefits |
|
|
------- Daniel R. R vs. Board of Ed |
academic or nonacademicskills |
|
|
Oberti vs Bd of Ed |
Inclusive programmingoffers substantial benefits to all students and community; inclusion is a rightnot a privilege for selected few |
|
|
Rachel H |
Benefit: costs may be considered, costs cannot be a reason torefuse services |
|
|
Oldmstead Case |
most significant ADA case |
|
|
Is the list of related services exhaustive? |
No, the services are forthe student to benefit from special ed services |
|
|
Eligibility for related services |
eligible for IDEA, ifstudent benefits from special education services |
|
|
Exempt “related services” |
do not include medicaldevices that are surgically implanted |
|
|
Zobrest case and interpreter Services |
the establishment clausedid not bar placing a public employee at a religious institution. Court did notaddress the extent to which the IDEA requires related services to be providedto students in parochial schools |
|
|
Psychotherapy |
in some states, apsychologist can offer psychotherapy, while other states it can only be offeredby psychiatrists. If it has to be psychiatrists, then the school is notresponsible to offer this service |
|
|
Tatro |
(established Bright Line Test—CICneeded, bonifide service that can be provided by a layperson) Bright–Line test –established by Tatro - if a physician isneeded, then its not the schools responsibility, if a layperson is involvedthen its our responsibility |
|
|
Bright –Line test |
established by Tatro - if aphysician is needed, then its not the schools responsibility, if a layperson isinvolved then its our responsibility |
|
|
Health Services and Cedar Rapids v. Garrett F. |
continuous nursingservices: CIC< suctioning, ventilator checks, blood pressure and respiratorydistress monitoring, school believed that they shouldn’t have to offer allservices to one student. However, Supreme Court ruled that if it did notrequire a physician, then the school was required to offer that service (upheldBright line test). |
|
|
Did you learn everything? |
NO! |
|
|
Name the four types of law |
1. Constitutional 2. Statuatory 3. Regulatory 4. Case |
|
|
Very top, most powerful piece of law |
Constitutional |
|
|
Very top, most powerful piece of law |
Constitutional |
|
|
IDEA is one, Congress enacted (type of law) |
Statutory |
|
|
Very top, most powerful piece of law |
Constitutional |
|
|
IDEA is one, Congress enacted (type of law) |
Statutory |
|
|
After a law is passed, an organization is put in charge of regulations of how to implement the law |
Regulatory |
|
|
Very top, most powerful piece of law |
Constitutional |
|
|
An act of the legislative system IDEA is one, Congress enacted (type of law) |
Statutory |
|
|
After a law is passed, an organization is put in charge of regulations of how to implement the law |
Regulatory |
|
|
Decisions by courts |
Case law |
|
|
Number of court of appeals |
13 |
|
|
Number of circuit courts |
Hundreds |
|
|
Members of supreme court |
9, right now there are 8 |
|
|
How many female members of the Supreme Court |
3, Kagen, Sota Mayor, & Ginsbers |
|
|
Watson v City of Cambridge |
Students with disabilities too weak minded to profit from instruction |
|
|
PARC v Commonwealth of PA |
An education involves more than academics Right to education and related training |
|
|
Mills v Board of Ed |
Due process safeguards (involved a variety of students with various disabilities) |
|
|
What circuit court are we in? |
One |
|
|
What circuit court are we in? |
One |
